Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object-centered high-level reference ontology Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Object-centered_high-level_reference_ontology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Object-centered high-level reference ontology

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this theory notable? Currently the article is based on two sources: first is the paper of the author of the theory and therefore is not independent, and second is some kind of lecture slides with unknown reliability. Scholar and book search can find some mentions of this theory in other articles, but not enough to judge its notability. The Russian version of this page is suggested for deletation. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a hoax (but I fear it may not be). Unsourced anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- It is sourced. And there are further sources that show up on google scholar. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sourced. It's just babble anyway. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unpromising OCHRE search results (found only other stuff), nothing about OCHRE on dewiki for this alleged invention by a German scholar. –Be..anyone 💩 07:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS sources and not shown to be notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on Wikipedia, essence precedes existence. And essence is lacking here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. This is plainly original research, which we do not publish. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.